3 ms·

Of course they have to put a scary checkbox, otherwise they would be held liable for any sketchy app that is actually malware people accidentally downloaded. A

Of course they have to put a scary checkbox, otherwise they would be held liable for any sketchy app that is actually malware people accidentally downloaded. And I guarantee if the checkbox wasn’t there, you would be complaining that there aren’t enough safeguards to keep people safe. I can’t even stand Google, but come on.

saurik 6y ago
> And I guarantee if the checkbox wasn’t there, you would be complaining that there aren’t enough safeguards to keep people safe. I hope what you mean is that someone else would be making the argument that the checkbox is necessary: claiming a crowd of people are a single inconsistent argument is disingenuous.
- pb7 6y ago
  But the opposing crowd exists and maybe you personally don't have to deal with it but these companies do. Apple and Google deal with billions of ordinary people, not just tech nerds.
_qulr 6y ago
> Of course they have to put a scary checkbox, otherwise they would be held liable for any sketchy app that is actually malware people accidentally downloaded. What do you mean by "held liable"? It can't be in the legal sense, because Microsoft has never been held legally liable for Windows malware, and Apple has never been held legally liable for Mac malware.
- pb7 6y ago
  Held liable just like this: "In 2014 the US Federal Trade Commission ordered Apple to pay out $32.3m (£24.6m) to reimburse American parents for unauthorised app purchases made by their children."[0] https://www.theguardian.com/money/2020/mar/11/my-kids-spent-600-on-their-ipads-without-my-knowledge https://www.theguardian.com/money/2020/mar/11/my-kids-spent-...
  - _qulr 6y ago
    This is the complete opposite of holding Apple liable for sideloaded apps. Apple was a direct party to these transactions. If Apple isn't the payment processor, they're off the hook.
    - pb7 6y ago
      Please, in what way is Apple liable for this other than the fact they need to hold someone accountable for the damages? You really can’t imagine this taking place for malware that compromises payment information? They may not be ordered to pay but the headlines would read the same and the negative PR is worth way more than a few million.
      - _qulr 6y ago
        But again, Mac malware exists, Windows malware exists. Yet "sideloading" is still much easier on those platforms than on Android. So obviously this kind of "liability", i.e., bad PR, doesn't and hasn't required the same implementation, and certainly doesn't force them to make the platforms App Store only.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
plasticxme 6y ago
No, there is no reason for them to do that. Microsoft has proven otherwise over their entire existence.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  Microsoft also has a "scary checkbox", in the form of "are you sure you want to run this exe that came from the Internet?" popup.

saurik 6y ago

> And I guarantee if the checkbox wasn’t there, you would be complaining that there aren’t enough safeguards to keep people safe. I hope what you mean is that someone else would be making the argument that the checkbox is necessary: claiming a crowd of people are a single inconsistent argument is disingenuous.

pb7 6y ago
But the opposing crowd exists and maybe you personally don't have to deal with it but these companies do. Apple and Google deal with billions of ordinary people, not just tech nerds.

_qulr 6y ago

> Of course they have to put a scary checkbox, otherwise they would be held liable for any sketchy app that is actually malware people accidentally downloaded. What do you mean by "held liable"? It can't be in the legal sense, because Microsoft has never been held legally liable for Windows malware, and Apple has never been held legally liable for Mac malware.

pb7 6y ago
Held liable just like this: "In 2014 the US Federal Trade Commission ordered Apple to pay out $32.3m (£24.6m) to reimburse American parents for unauthorised app purchases made by their children."[0] https://www.theguardian.com/money/2020/mar/11/my-kids-spent-600-on-their-ipads-without-my-knowledge https://www.theguardian.com/money/2020/mar/11/my-kids-spent-...
- _qulr 6y ago
  This is the complete opposite of holding Apple liable for sideloaded apps. Apple was a direct party to these transactions. If Apple isn't the payment processor, they're off the hook.
  - pb7 6y ago
    Please, in what way is Apple liable for this other than the fact they need to hold someone accountable for the damages? You really can’t imagine this taking place for malware that compromises payment information? They may not be ordered to pay but the headlines would read the same and the negative PR is worth way more than a few million.
    - _qulr 6y ago
      But again, Mac malware exists, Windows malware exists. Yet "sideloading" is still much easier on those platforms than on Android. So obviously this kind of "liability", i.e., bad PR, doesn't and hasn't required the same implementation, and certainly doesn't force them to make the platforms App Store only.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

plasticxme 6y ago

No, there is no reason for them to do that. Microsoft has proven otherwise over their entire existence.

TeMPOraL 6y ago
Microsoft also has a "scary checkbox", in the form of "are you sure you want to run this exe that came from the Internet?" popup.